DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 53-75
Cancelled claims: 1-52
Claims currently under consideration: 53-75
Currently rejected claims: 53-75
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 53-75) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 42-44, 48, and 50-52 are canceled.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the words/numbers in Figs 4 and 9 are too small to be legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 54-75 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 54-75, “A food product of claim” should be read as “The food product of claim”.
In claim 55, “Lactobacillus” should be read as “Lactobacillus”.
In claim 68, “40 X 10-8 g/h.m.Pa” should be read as “40 X 10-8 g/h·m·Pa”.
In claim 73, “Triticum aestivum” should be read as “Triticum aestivum”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 57, 61, 64-65, 69, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the plasticizer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, claim 57 will be interpreted as depending from claim 56.
Claims 61 and 65 recite a moisture content of greater than 90%. Claim 69 recites a moisture content of 90%-95%. However, the claims do not recite a unit of measurement associate with the percentages (e.g., wt.%, vol.%); therefore, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the percentages will be interpreted as being a weight percentage.
Claims 64 and 65 recite “40 X 10”8 g/h.m.Pa”. It is unclear as to what value is to be interpreted from “10”8”. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, “40 X 10”8 g/h.m.Pa” will be interpreted as “40 X 10-8 g/h·m·Pa”.
Claim 75 recites that the dried mucilage is autoclaved and filtered without contamination. However, it is unclear as to when these method steps occur (e.g., when the dried mucilage is being made but prior to the addition of the mucilage to the film layer; after the mucilage has been added to the fruit or vegetable), especially wherein the present claims are directed toward a product and not a method. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as meaning that the mucilage is autoclaved and filtered prior to being added to other ingredients to form a film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 53-57, 62, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Navani (IN201911018180A; IDS citation).
Regarding claim 53, Navani teaches an edible film comprising dried mucilage and a probiotic dispersed in the dried mucilage (page 7, 3ʳᵈ paragraph; page 8, 5th-6th paragraphs). Navani teaches that the edible film may be applied on fruits (page 10, 3ʳᵈ paragraph).
Regarding claim 54, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the dried mucilage is obtained from seeds of a plant (page 8, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 55, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the probiotic comprises Lactobacillus (page 7, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claims 56 and 57, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the food product further comprises the plasticizer glycerol (page 7, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 62, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the edible film layer has a water activity of 0.52±0.01 (page 7, 5th paragraph), which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 66, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the edible film layer further comprises glycerol (page 7, 3rd paragraph), which is known as a natural wetting agent, a flavoring agent, and a sweetener.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 53, 58-62, 64, 69-70, and 73-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beikzadeh (Beikzadeh et al., “Seed mucilages as the function ingredients for biodegradable films and edible coatings in the food industry”, 2020, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 280, 102164; IDS citation).
Regarding claims 53, 73, and 74, Beikzadeh teaches a food product comprising: a fruit or a vegetable; and an edible film layer disposed on at least part of the fruit or vegetable wherein the edible film layer comprises a dried mucilage (page 2, Fig. 1; page 6, 2nd column, paragraph under heading beginning “3. Application of seed mucilages as edible coatings for fruits and vegetables”) as recited in present claim 53. Beikzadeh teaches that edible films and coatings are appropriate carriers for probiotics (page 3, 1st column, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, Beikzadeh at least suggests that probiotics may be dispersed in the dried mucilage, thereby rendering this feature recited in present claim 53 obvious.
Beikzadeh teaches that the dried mucilage may be obtained from aloe leaves, slipper elm inner bark, quince seeds, flax seeds, basil seeds, wild sage seeds, cress seeds, or fenugreek seeds (page 3, 1st column, 1st paragraph; page 4, Table 1) as recited in present claim 73. Beikzadeh teaches that the fruit or vegetable may be strawberry, tomato, orange (corresponding to mandarin), apple, apricot, or potato (page 7, Table 2) as recited in present claim 74.
Regarding claims 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 69, and 70, Beikzadeh teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the mucilages and other ingredients (e.g., glycerol) of the edible film layer affect characteristics of the edible film layer such as tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability (page 3, 2nd column, 1st paragraph – page 4, 1st column 1st paragraph; page 4, 1st column 3rd paragraph -2nd column, 3rd paragraph; page 5, 2nd column, 1st paragraph; page 5, 1st column, 5th paragraph-2nd column 1st paragraph; page 6, 1st column 2nd paragraph; page 6, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph). Beikzadeh discloses a tensile strength of 13.28 MPa; an elastic modulus of 66.13 MPa; a thickness of 150-180 microns (corresponding to 0.18±0.03 mm); a moisture content of 77.82 wt.%; a water activity of 0.485; and a water vapor permeability of 9.24 x 10-11 g/Pasm (page 5, 2nd column, 1st paragraph; page 6, 1st column, 1st paragraph; page 6, 2nd column, 1st paragraph). The disclosed tensile strength and water activity fall within the claimed ranges recited in present claims 58, 62, and 70 while the disclosed thickness overlaps the claimed range recited in present claim 60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Furthermore, as the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity and water vapor permeability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the type and content of the mucilages and other ingredients in the edible film layer, the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity and water vapor permeability would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity and water vapor permeability cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity and water vapor permeability in the edible film of Beikzadeh using a tensile strength of 13.28 MPa; an elastic modulus of 66.13 MPa; a thickness of 150-180 microns (corresponding to 0.18±0.03 mm); a moisture content of 77.82 wt.%; a water activity of 0.485; and a water vapor permeability of 9.24 x 10-11 g/Pasm as guides to obtain the desired functionality of the edible film (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Furthermore, in relation to the claimed water vapor permeability being displayed after 14 days, similar to how storage conditions affect the coated fruit or vegetable (page 7, 1st column), storage conditions are considered to be a factor in water vapor permeability of the edible film comprising the coat of the fruit or vegetable. The Office also does not have laboratory facilities to test claim limitations drawn toward results of features of the edible film layer after 14 days of storage. Accordingly, such the claimed water vapor permeability after 14 days of storage does not serve to distinguish the product as claimed from the prior art and are thus considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the features of claims 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 69, and 70 are rendered obvious.
Claims 53 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Gheribi (Gheribi et al., “Cactus Mucilage for Food Packaging Systems”, 2019, Coatings, 9, 655).
Regarding claim 53, Gheribi teaches a food product comprising: a fruit or a vegetable (corresponding to yam); and an edible film layer disposed on at least part of the fruit or vegetable wherein the edible film layer comprises a dried mucilage (corresponding to cactus mucilage) (page 1, paragraph; page 12, 2nd paragraph; page 13, 1st paragraph; pages 14-15, Table 3). Gheribi teaches that the edible films and coatings comprising probiotics have been developed (page 1, paragraph). Therefore, Gheribi at least suggests that probiotics may be dispersed in the dried mucilage, thereby rendering this feature recited in present claim 53 obvious.
Regarding claim 67, Gheribi teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the edible film layer may further comprise resistant starch (corresponding to cassava starch) or pectin (page 8, 2nd paragraph- page9, 1st paragraph; page 13, 1st paragraph).
Claims 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beikzadeh (Beikzadeh et al., “Seed mucilages as the function ingredients for biodegradable films and edible coatings in the food industry”, 2020, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 280, 102164; IDS citation) as applied to claim 53 above, in view of Pavli (Pavli et al., “Probiotic Incorporation in Edible Films and Coatings: Bioactive Solution for Functional Foods”, 2018, International Journal of Molecular Science, 19, 150; IDS citation).
Regarding claim 65, Beikzadeh teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the mucilages and other ingredients (e.g., glycerol) of the edible film layer affect characteristics of the edible film layer such as tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability (page 3, 2nd column, 1st paragraph – page 4, 1st column 1st paragraph; page 4, 1st column 3rd paragraph -2nd column, 3rd paragraph; page 5, 2nd column, 1st paragraph; page 5, 1st column, 5th paragraph-2nd column 1st paragraph; page 6, 1st column 2nd paragraph; page 6, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph). Beikzadeh discloses a tensile strength of 13.28 MPa; an elastic modulus of 66.13 MPa; a thickness of 150-180 microns (corresponding to 0.18±0.03 mm); a moisture content of 77.82 wt.%; a water activity of 0.485; and a water vapor permeability of 9.24 x 10-11 g/Pasm (page 5, 2nd column, 1st paragraph; page 6, 1st column, 1st paragraph; page 6, 2nd column, 1st paragraph). The disclosed tensile strength and water activity fall within the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Furthermore, as the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the type and content of the mucilages and other ingredients in the edible film layer, the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability in the edible film of Beikzadeh using a tensile strength of 13.28 MPa; an elastic modulus of 66.13 MPa; a thickness of 150-180 microns (corresponding to 0.18±0.03 mm); a moisture content of 77.82 wt.%; a water activity of 0.485; and a water vapor permeability of 9.24 x 10-11 g/Pasm as guides to obtain the desired functionality of the edible film (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Furthermore, in relation to the claimed water vapor permeability being displayed after 14 days, similar to how storage conditions affect the coated fruit or vegetable (page 7, 1st column), storage conditions are considered to be a factor in water vapor permeability of the edible film comprising the coat of the fruit or vegetable. The Office also does not have laboratory facilities to test claim limitations drawn toward results of features of the edible film layer after 14 days of storage. Accordingly, such the claimed water vapor permeability after 14 days of storage does not serve to distinguish the product as claimed from the prior art and are thus considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
For at least the reasons discussed above, the tensile strength, elastic modulus, thickness, moisture content, water activity, and water vapor permeability recited in present claim 65 are rendered obvious.
Beikzadeh teaches that edible films and coatings are appropriate carriers for probiotics (page 3, 1st column, 2nd paragraph), thereby at least suggesting that probiotics may be dispersed in the dried mucilage. Beikzadeh does not teach that the edible film layer exhibits the claimed level of viability.
However, Pavli discloses edible films and coatings comprising probiotics for foods such as fruit, wherein the recommended daily dosage of probiotics is approximately 10 log CFU/g (corresponding to ~109 viable cells) (page 2, 3rd-4th paragraphs; page 6, Table 1). Pavli discloses that an edible film comprising probiotics maintained its original cell viability after storage at room temperature for 20 days while after 30-60 days storage, no viable cells were detected (page 8, 3rd paragraph). Pavli does not specify the initial amount of probiotics in the edible film; however, if the goal of probiotic foods is to provide a recommended dosage of approximately 10 log CFU/g, then it would have been obvious for the initial amount of probiotics to be at least approximately 10 log CFU/g. Therefore, Pavli is considered to at least suggest a range of probiotic viabilities that include at least 7 log CFU/g after 21 days at room temperature as presently claimed.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the edible film of Beikzadeh to have a range of probiotic viabilities which includes at least 7 log CFU/g after 21 days at room temperature as taught by Pavli. Since Beikzadeh suggests that edible films and coatings may contain probiotics (page 3, 1st column, 2nd paragraph), but does not disclose an amount of viable probiotics in the edible film, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Pavli in order to determine a suitable amount of viable probiotics for an edible film, thereby rendering the claimed probiotic viability obvious.
Claims 60, 63, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navani (IN201911018180A; IDS citation) as applied to claim 53 above.
Regarding claim 60, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including an edible film not comprising the mucilage and probiotics has a thickness of 130 ± 20 microns (corresponding to thickness of 0.13 ± 0.02 mm); and that the addition of the mucilage and probiotics did not significantly alter the thickness of the edible film (page 10, 4th paragraph). Although Navani does not disclose the specific thickness of the film comprising the mucilage and probiotics, the thickness of the film comprising the mucilage and probiotics is considered to at least overlap the claimed thickness since a such overlapping amounts represent non-significant deviations from 130 ± 20 microns.
Regarding claim 63, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53, including the edible film layer exhibits a probiotic viability of about 9.5 log CFU/g after the edible film is made (corresponding to the lighter colored column in Fig. 3 for “+CG+B”). Navani teaches discloses that the edible film experiences a decrease in viable probiotics of about 0.75 log after 10 days at room temperature (corresponding to the line in the graph for “+CG” in Fig. 4; page 10, 3rd paragraph). This decrease in viable probiotics would put the amount of viable probiotics at about 8.75 after 10 days at room temperature. Although Navani does not disclose the decrease in viable probiotics for 21 days at room temperature, Navani is considered to at least suggest such a feature due to: (1) the aforementioned results seen after 10 days at room temperature; (2) Navani disclosing that greater than 6.0 log CFU/g in a food product is desirable (page 2, 2nd paragraph); and (3) Navani not disclosing any particular amount of probiotic being required in the edible film prior to storage (e.g., the edible film may comprise 12 log CFU/g probiotic bacteria on day 0 of storage at room temperature so that the edible film may comprise greater than 7 log CFU/g viable probiotics on day 21 of storage at room temperature). Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious. Further, the Office does not have laboratory facilities to test claim limitations drawn toward results of features of a composition as claimed. Accordingly, such probiotic viability does not serve to distinguish the product as claimed from the prior art and is thus considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 75, Navani teaches the invention as described above in claim 53. Navani does not disclose that the dried mucilage is autoclaved and filtered without contamination prior to being added to other ingredients to form an edible film. However, it is noted that claim 75 is a product-by-process claim and “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2113.I.
Claims 68, 71, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beikzadeh (Beikzadeh et al., “Seed mucilages as the function ingredients for biodegradable films and edible coatings in the food industry”, 2020, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 280, 102164) as applied to claims 53 and 61 above, in view of Kozlu (Kozlu et al., “Quince Seed Mucilage as Edible Coating for Mandarin Fruit; Determination of the Quality Characteristics During Storage”, 2019, Agrofood).
Regarding claims 68, 71, and 72, Beikzadeh teaches the invention as described above in claim 53 and 61, including the mucilages and other ingredients (e.g., glycerol) of the edible film layer affect characteristics of the edible film layer such as water vapor permeability (page 3, 2nd column, 1st paragraph – page 4, 1st column 1st paragraph; page 4, 1st column 3rd paragraph -2nd column, 3rd paragraph; page 5, 1st column, 5th paragraph-2nd column 1st paragraph; page 6, 1st column 2nd paragraph; page 6, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph). Therefore, water vapor permeability is shown to be a result effective variable, thereby rendering the water permeability recited in present claim 68 obvious. Beikzadeh also discloses that edible coatings are advantageous due to their ability to prevent moisture loss (page 2, 1st column).
Beikzadeh does not teach that the fruit or vegetable shows substantially no change in appearance after 7 days as recited in present claim 68; or that the fruit or vegetable has substantially no observed water loss after 7 days or after 1 month of storage as recited in present claims 71 and 72.
However, Kozlu teaches that mandarin oranges coated in an edible mucilage film had substantially no change in appearance; and substantially no observed water loss after storage for 10 days (Introduction; Figures 3a, 3b, and 4a), thereby rendering present claims 68 and 71 obvious. Considering the rate of water loss experienced during the 10 days of storage (Fig. 2) and the appearance of the coated oranges being visually the same on day 10 as the oranges were on day 0, it would have been obvious for the oranges of Kozlu to have substantially no observed water loss after one month of storage as recited in present claim 72.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the product of Beikzadeh so that the fruit or vegetable does not show water loss after 7 days or one month of storage as taught by Kozlu. Since Beikzadeh teaches that edible coatings are advantageous due to their ability to prevent moisture loss (page 2, 1st column), but does not disclose a level of moisture loss prevention obtainable by an edible film, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Kozlu in order to determine a suitable level of moisture loss prevention, thereby render claims 71 and 72 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights